1. Title, director and release year? ‘The Corporation,’ directed by Mark Achbar, 2003 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? Companies initially grew in size from support and monetary gain, strictly from advertisement and putting forth an attractive vision to their customers. Certainly things weren’t always done “by the books” and cutting corners was frequent to save money, but companies realized that when they grew in size and had an image of supremacy and confidence, their customers would always be faithful and few would ask questions about their methods. Then, once corporations realized they could coerce the Supreme Court that they represented a single body/person based on actions they were able to take and participate in society (e.g. buy/sell land), they began to rise in power and dominate even more than they had on profit alone. They were able to manipulate syntax to support their claims, further growing in size and not tarnishing their reputation in the slightest. So this film takes its audience on a journey through the analysis of a corporation as its legal “person” identity, ultimately proving that they’re only based on power/money, managing to always push off problems (avoid responsibility) to smaller divisions to avoid affecting the company’s image. And now it seems that something that helped make these giants what they are today (the legal system) isn’t able to deflate them because of the “right” connections (and profitable schemes) made with higher political seats. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political/economic: the support system that is now in place with higher levels of government that work hand-in-hand either with corporations directly, or sway legislation to support their continued growth and thriving (e.g. previous Monsanto representatives now within the White House.) These connections have become crucial to the company’s dominance, but should be terminated for the preached “fairness” that our legislative bodies offer our country. These larger businesses are then allowed to influence legislature and ultimately override any propositions from the people that seem contradictory to their wants/needs; these influences also don’t allow growth in other areas (whether that growth be of other businesses, ideas for updating infrastructure, or major changes to the future of our country and the world), keeping mindsets and policies directed at certain goals (profit margins). Media/informational: It’s obvious that the pursuit of truth gives way to the pursuit of profit, but who will defend the public’s right to know? Society is flooded with advertisements daily, but the people don’t really know what’s going on behind the scenes. Someone somewhere always stands to make a profit, but knowing where money is funneled to and knowing what you’re supporting when you purchase a product or preach a brand is the grey area. Yes, every media outlet has their own bias and puts their own spin on information, but how can the public be sure that they are even being provided the right information? Are they supposed to think that everything they hear and see is accurate? Cultural: If corporations are to be considered “people,” where does the morality of their actions come into play? Or are they opting out of that option? Clearly they have powers of deceit, but an flawed incapacity to experience guilt/remorse for their actions. Behavioral: 30 million other species that share Earth with us humans are affected by our actions and decisions; it’s obvious that they don’t benefit at all from our ways of life since all environments are in decline. So where do corporations fit into this? They’re just the “bigger people” affecting the environment and interweaving webs of connections that decide how we treat the environment and dictate our future. They propose methods of production that benefit their cost analysis, they build factories and dump chemicals because they “don’t have biological effects,” and they insist on making products (that “benefit” society) available country-wide with the help of mass transportation. And how do you tell a giant that they can’t do something, that they have taken advantage of the system? They’ll just turn it back to you, convincing you that parts of people’s successful lives are owed to products they make or the profit that they “donated” to charity. Do you want to be responsible for telling the company to stop making people’s lives “better”? Of course not – it’s a game of image that always settles itself in the last inning with the bigger man on top. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? - The organization of each of the headings/sections of the film were all things able to be experienced by humans, but were clearly not able to be felt by corporations, only further proving that corporations shouldn’t be considered people. - How the political system has been corrupted and legislation has even allowed large companies to act as and be treated as people and members of society since they are able to buy/sell property, file lawsuits, etc. The fact that the 14th amendment was amended from allowing personal protection to permitting the protection of capital and business is astonishing. How do companies persuade judiciary members that this is feasible? Corporations are faceless powers that control/dictate what happens to land, people/workers, legislation, etc. via persuasion of what’s best for capital/profit – there’s absolutely no reason why they should be considered people and applicable to personal rights provided by the Constitution; it’s as if they’re taking our money and all of our rights…what will we have left when they’re done with us? - Externalities: corporations deliver results and then externalize (or let someone else deal with) anything else the public will allow, permitting them to skirt around the issues and find shady solutions to problems that they’ve created. Unfortunately there is only a small outcry in making this issue known alongside their national and global authority. - How companies were able to harm to workers [layoffs, union hustling, sweatshops, factory fires, synthetic products, dangerous products, toxic wastes], yet be seen as heaven-sent when they invade desperate communities and provide jobs. The exploitation of cheap labor is disgusting: they use up one town and move on to the next once they catch sight of “stability.” - The power of patents: how patents can be applied to anything nowadays (genes, cells, etc.), leaving those who have the patents with incredible power to capitalize. - One specific example of corporations making profit from war: in WWII, IBM provided a system used to brand and catalog those in concentration camps…and here I thought that there was no involvement outside of the Nazi party in controlling most of Europe, but knowing that a popular company today made its initial profit from aiding in genocide makes me so angry and sick with disappointment not only form their involvement, but because of the skeletons they were able to keep in the closet so they could still make a profit today. If more people knew this, I’m very sure that they would no longer support the company and its products, but might also be caught in a catch 22: how many of the operating systems used today are IBM based? And how connected is IBM with other computer and software companies? 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The film seemed completely anti-corporation, which with all of the rights and power issues is understandable, but it left me feeling like there weren’t any corporations that I could really trust to be doing the right thing. I wish that there was some light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel about specific companies that don’t outsource, understand their environmental impact, and are honest in their practices. Then again, maybe those large companies don’t exist and smaller businesses are the key to a trusting relationship between provider and consumer. 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? - Is there ever any opposition from governments when the large corporations (e.g. Nike) come into their small, impoverished communities and offer cheap labor? Do they not understand that the wages they are receiving aren’t allowing the workers to support their families, let alone make their lives easier? The corporation’s “incapacity to maintain lasting relationships” shows that they take advantage of communities and don’t allow them to maintain a sustainable income; once the community seems stable, the company picks up and moves onto the next one. - The 1940’s in the U.S. was the era of synthesis and creation. This “petrochemical era” yielded exponential growth in the number of chemicals and hazards. Even today, the industry knows about effects that certain chemicals have on their customers and the environment, but decides that they aren’t doing to do anything about it (e.g. ½ men and 1/3 women get cancer in their lifetimes). - What is corporate responsibility? What defines a company that people can “trust”? 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This film would be most effective to show to those people who are proud supporters of big name brands that provide monetary support and free products (e.g. Nike) to prove to them that they’re being played: the companies are exhibiting a positive light when they show charity, yet they’re advertising while also deceiving the supporters. It’s hard for people to come to that conclusion, let alone give up such influential support, but knowing the details behind production (workers, factory conditions, pollution) leads you to understand how they’re able to make so much money from cheap methods. Best case scenario: viewers are skeptical of the inspiration of companies; they don’t take their word for granted and are weary of their decisions to support brand names. Not only will they realize that they’re being deceived on face-value and monetary elements, but that the corporations are so interconnected to actions made in sustaining our future and protecting the planet’s resources that they’d be forced to at least re-think their decisions. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? Being aware of where your money goes: you purchases are a vote, and what you buy agrees with what you are supporting, from the materials, labor, and production practices of the product. Company names are linked directly to how their products are made, and letting people know that they deserve to know how the company is controlling those processes gives them back a little bit more power of decision, not just relying on persuasion alone. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? - More specifics of either the politics or where to find more information on the legislative background on what corporations are specifically allowed to do: what rights they have and where they can find loopholes - Examples of how corporate representatives who have been elected into political offices have swayed decisions supporting their previous companies
‘The Corporation,’ directed by Mark Achbar, 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Companies initially grew in size from support and monetary gain, strictly from advertisement and putting forth an attractive vision to their customers. Certainly things weren’t always done “by the books” and cutting corners was frequent to save money, but companies realized that when they grew in size and had an image of supremacy and confidence, their customers would always be faithful and few would ask questions about their methods.
Then, once corporations realized they could coerce the Supreme Court that they represented a single body/person based on actions they were able to take and participate in society (e.g. buy/sell land), they began to rise in power and dominate even more than they had on profit alone. They were able to manipulate syntax to support their claims, further growing in size and not tarnishing their reputation in the slightest.
So this film takes its audience on a journey through the analysis of a corporation as its legal “person” identity, ultimately proving that they’re only based on power/money, managing to always push off problems (avoid responsibility) to smaller divisions to avoid affecting the company’s image. And now it seems that something that helped make these giants what they are today (the legal system) isn’t able to deflate them because of the “right” connections (and profitable schemes) made with higher political seats.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political/economic: the support system that is now in place with higher levels of government that work hand-in-hand either with corporations directly, or sway legislation to support their continued growth and thriving (e.g. previous Monsanto representatives now within the White House.) These connections have become crucial to the company’s dominance, but should be terminated for the preached “fairness” that our legislative bodies offer our country. These larger businesses are then allowed to influence legislature and ultimately override any propositions from the people that seem contradictory to their wants/needs; these influences also don’t allow growth in other areas (whether that growth be of other businesses, ideas for updating infrastructure, or major changes to the future of our country and the world), keeping mindsets and policies directed at certain goals (profit margins).
Media/informational: It’s obvious that the pursuit of truth gives way to the pursuit of profit, but who will defend the public’s right to know? Society is flooded with advertisements daily, but the people don’t really know what’s going on behind the scenes. Someone somewhere always stands to make a profit, but knowing where money is funneled to and knowing what you’re supporting when you purchase a product or preach a brand is the grey area. Yes, every media outlet has their own bias and puts their own spin on information, but how can the public be sure that they are even being provided the right information? Are they supposed to think that everything they hear and see is accurate?
Cultural: If corporations are to be considered “people,” where does the morality of their actions come into play? Or are they opting out of that option? Clearly they have powers of deceit, but an flawed incapacity to experience guilt/remorse for their actions.
Behavioral: 30 million other species that share Earth with us humans are affected by our actions and decisions; it’s obvious that they don’t benefit at all from our ways of life since all environments are in decline. So where do corporations fit into this? They’re just the “bigger people” affecting the environment and interweaving webs of connections that decide how we treat the environment and dictate our future. They propose methods of production that benefit their cost analysis, they build factories and dump chemicals because they “don’t have biological effects,” and they insist on making products (that “benefit” society) available country-wide with the help of mass transportation.
And how do you tell a giant that they can’t do something, that they have taken advantage of the system? They’ll just turn it back to you, convincing you that parts of people’s successful lives are owed to products they make or the profit that they “donated” to charity. Do you want to be responsible for telling the company to stop making people’s lives “better”? Of course not – it’s a game of image that always settles itself in the last inning with the bigger man on top.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The organization of each of the headings/sections of the film were all things able to be experienced by humans, but were clearly not able to be felt by corporations, only further proving that corporations shouldn’t be considered people.
- How the political system has been corrupted and legislation has even allowed large companies to act as and be treated as people and members of society since they are able to buy/sell property, file lawsuits, etc. The fact that the 14th amendment was amended from allowing personal protection to permitting the protection of capital and business is astonishing. How do companies persuade judiciary members that this is feasible? Corporations are faceless powers that control/dictate what happens to land, people/workers, legislation, etc. via persuasion of what’s best for capital/profit – there’s absolutely no reason why they should be considered people and applicable to personal rights provided by the Constitution; it’s as if they’re taking our money and all of our rights…what will we have left when they’re done with us?
- Externalities: corporations deliver results and then externalize (or let someone else deal with) anything else the public will allow, permitting them to skirt around the issues and find shady solutions to problems that they’ve created. Unfortunately there is only a small outcry in making this issue known alongside their national and global authority.
- How companies were able to harm to workers [layoffs, union hustling, sweatshops, factory fires, synthetic products, dangerous products, toxic wastes], yet be seen as heaven-sent when they invade desperate communities and provide jobs. The exploitation of cheap labor is disgusting: they use up one town and move on to the next once they catch sight of “stability.”
- The power of patents: how patents can be applied to anything nowadays (genes, cells, etc.), leaving those who have the patents with incredible power to capitalize.
- One specific example of corporations making profit from war: in WWII, IBM provided a system used to brand and catalog those in concentration camps…and here I thought that there was no involvement outside of the Nazi party in controlling most of Europe, but knowing that a popular company today made its initial profit from aiding in genocide makes me so angry and sick with disappointment not only form their involvement, but because of the skeletons they were able to keep in the closet so they could still make a profit today. If more people knew this, I’m very sure that they would no longer support the company and its products, but might also be caught in a catch 22: how many of the operating systems used today are IBM based? And how connected is IBM with other computer and software companies?
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The film seemed completely anti-corporation, which with all of the rights and power issues is understandable, but it left me feeling like there weren’t any corporations that I could really trust to be doing the right thing. I wish that there was some light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel about specific companies that don’t outsource, understand their environmental impact, and are honest in their practices. Then again, maybe those large companies don’t exist and smaller businesses are the key to a trusting relationship between provider and consumer.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- Is there ever any opposition from governments when the large corporations (e.g. Nike) come into their small, impoverished communities and offer cheap labor? Do they not understand that the wages they are receiving aren’t allowing the workers to support their families, let alone make their lives easier? The corporation’s “incapacity to maintain lasting relationships” shows that they take advantage of communities and don’t allow them to maintain a sustainable income; once the community seems stable, the company picks up and moves onto the next one.
- The 1940’s in the U.S. was the era of synthesis and creation. This “petrochemical era” yielded exponential growth in the number of chemicals and hazards. Even today, the industry knows about effects that certain chemicals have on their customers and the environment, but decides that they aren’t doing to do anything about it (e.g. ½ men and 1/3 women get cancer in their lifetimes).
- What is corporate responsibility? What defines a company that people can “trust”?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film would be most effective to show to those people who are proud supporters of big name brands that provide monetary support and free products (e.g. Nike) to prove to them that they’re being played: the companies are exhibiting a positive light when they show charity, yet they’re advertising while also deceiving the supporters. It’s hard for people to come to that conclusion, let alone give up such influential support, but knowing the details behind production (workers, factory conditions, pollution) leads you to understand how they’re able to make so much money from cheap methods.
Best case scenario: viewers are skeptical of the inspiration of companies; they don’t take their word for granted and are weary of their decisions to support brand names. Not only will they realize that they’re being deceived on face-value and monetary elements, but that the corporations are so interconnected to actions made in sustaining our future and protecting the planet’s resources that they’d be forced to at least re-think their decisions.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Being aware of where your money goes: you purchases are a vote, and what you buy agrees with what you are supporting, from the materials, labor, and production practices of the product. Company names are linked directly to how their products are made, and letting people know that they deserve to know how the company is controlling those processes gives them back a little bit more power of decision, not just relying on persuasion alone.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- More specifics of either the politics or where to find more information on the legislative background on what corporations are specifically allowed to do: what rights they have and where they can find loopholes
- Examples of how corporate representatives who have been elected into political offices have swayed decisions supporting their previous companies